"The Dutch had known since December 2002 that the Turkish
question was likely to be the defining issue during their EU Presidency.
They were also aware that the [European] Commission would almost
certainly recommend the opening of negotiations. They were therefore
well prepared when the Commission report appeared at the beginning of
October [2004]. …

When the Cabinet first discussed the Turkish
issue at length in February 2004, for example, only two senior
ministers, Ben Bot, the foreign minister, and Laures Jan Brinkhorst the
economics minister, came out strongly in support of an opening to
Turkey. The skeptics included heavyweight figures such as Gerrit Zalm,
deputy prime minister and minister of finance, and Cees Veerman, the
minister of agriculture, who came from the prime minister`s own party.
The arguments deployed against Turkish membership in the Dutch debate
were essentially the same as those that were used elsewhere in the
Union. …

Fifty years of NATO membership had little or no impact
on Turkey's political culture. … Since EU membership became a definite
rather than a theoretical possibility in 1999, by contrast, successive
Turkish governments, and most particularly the Erdogan government, have
implemented a revolution in politics, economics and
society, which is notable by any standards. …

The decision to
treat with Turkey is a dramatic step in the direction of a
multi-faith Union, which borders on and must therefore
develop entirely new relations with a region that is still the most
dangerous part of the world and where religion is a factor of primordial
importance. This … is bound to transform the domestic politics of the
Union, its self-understanding and its image in the world at large
."

Quotes from the 45-page report by Peter Ludlow, A View from
Brussels - Dealing with Turkey, The European Council of 16 -17 December
2004, Briefing Note Volume 3, N.7. www.eurocomment.be